MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622712159 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2016-046

How Research–Policy Partnerships Can Benefit Government: A Win–Win for Evidence-Based Policy-Making

2017· article· en· W2622712159 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Garrett Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealArgument (complex analysis)Government (linguistics)General partnershipPublic policyPublic relationsPolicy makingPolitical sciencePublic administrationPublic economicsBusinessEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the appeal of evidence-based policy-making to policy-makers themselves? What is the appeal of being influenced to make decisions they would not otherwise make? In this article, I argue that forging partnerships between research organizations and policy agencies can result in seven short-term benefits for the latter, independent of decision influence. These potential benefits are a more intuitive initial basis for partnership, and genuine influences on policy-making may still emerge over the long term. Overall, this article serves as a general argument in favour of evidence-informed policy, and research–policy partnerships in particular, directed at both academic and government audiences.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.160
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.160
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.858
GPT teacher head0.675
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207